Facts

In 1928, May Donoghue went to a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend. The friend ordered a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The drink came in an opaque bottle, so its contents couldn’t be seen. After drinking some of it, Donoghue poured the rest into a glass and discovered the decomposed remains of a snail. She claimed to have suffered from shock and gastroenteritis as a result. She brought a claim against the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, for negligence. The defendants pleaded that they did not owe any duty of care as there was no privity of contract between the two.

Issues:

1. Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the end consumer of its products, even if there is no contract between them?

2. Can a consumer claim compensation for physical harm caused by a product defect under the law of negligence?

Analysis:

The case raised an important legal question: could a person sue for harm caused by a defective product even if they had no direct contract with the manufacturer? Traditionally, tort law in the UK at that time placed limits on who could sue for negligence, usually requiring a contractual relationship or proof that the manufacturer had knowingly committed fraud or created something inherently dangerous.

However, this case challenged that understanding. The bottle of ginger beer was sealed and opaque, so the consumer had no chance to inspect it before drinking. This lack of visibility and the nature of consumer products meant that the buyer was placing full trust in the manufacturer’s care in preparing the drink safely.

Lord Atkin's famous ‘neighbour principle’ was introduced to address this gap in the law. He argued that individuals owe a duty of care not just to those they directly deal with, but to anyone who might reasonably be affected by their actions. He stated- ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.’

Here, the ‘neighbour’ was interpreted as any person who could be directly affected by the product—in this case, the consumer. The court recognized that manufacturers of food and drink products had a responsibility to ensure their goods were safe for consumption, even if they weren’t sold directly to the consumer.

The analysis also showed a shift in the approach to liability. Instead of focusing purely on contracts, the court looked at the duty of care more broadly, focusing on reasonable foreseeability of harm. If a manufacturer could foresee that a lack of care might injure someone, then a legal obligation to prevent that harm existed.

This reasoning helped bridge the gap between moral responsibility and legal duty. It also acknowledged the practical realities of modern consumerism, where products often pass through several hands before reaching the end user.

Judgement

The House of Lords, by a majority, ruled in favor of Donoghue, allowing her claim to proceed. Although the case was ultimately sent back for trial (rather than resulting in a final award of damages at this stage), the significance of the judgment lies in its recognition of a general duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers.

Lord Atkin’s opinion was the most influential. He articulated a new legal test based on foreseeability and proximity, stating that manufacturers must take reasonable care to prevent harm to those who will use their products. His ‘neighbour principle’ established a broader foundation for negligence, moving beyond the traditional requirement of a direct contractual relationship.

While not all the Lords agreed on the reasoning, the majority accepted that in cases where a manufacturer places a product on the market in a form intended to reach the consumer without possibility of intermediate inspection, a duty of care arises. The ginger beer bottle, being opaque and sealed, meant the consumer had no chance to detect any contamination or defect.

This judgement was groundbreaking because it formally recognized that someone like Donoghue—who neither bought the drink nor had a contract with the manufacturer—could still be owed a duty of care. This set a precedent that laid the groundwork for modern product liability and significantly expanded the reach of tort law.

In effect, the judgement shifted the legal landscape: negligence was no longer confined to situations where a pre-existing relationship (like contract) existed. Instead, it now rested on whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, and whether the defendant had failed in a duty to prevent it.

Conclusion:

Donoghue v. Stevenson became a foundational case in the development of the modern law of negligence. It introduced the principle that individuals and companies must take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to others. This case laid the cornerstone for product liability and remains a guiding precedent in tort law across common law jurisdictions.